1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 5, 2020 to January 27, 2021, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff and C are the spouse under the law who completed the report of marriage, and has his/her husband and wife.

B. From May 2018, the Defendant: (a) returned to the same company C from around May 2018; (b) even with knowledge that C was the father-and-child of her child, sent the call and Kakakao Stockholm messages from time to time while having knowledge of the fact that C was the father-and-child of her child; and (c) committed an unlawful act, such as by taking sex relations into consideration C’s children.

(c)

Even after the Plaintiff became aware of the fact around May 2019, the Defendant and C continued to teach the Defendant and C.

[Grounds for recognition] The respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 42, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. A. A third party who has a liability for damages shall not interfere with a married couple’s communal living falling under the nature of the marriage, such as intervention in a couple’s communal living of another person and resulting in a failure of the couple’s communal living.

In principle, a third party’s act of infringing on a married couple’s communal life falling under the essence of marriage or interfering with the maintenance thereof and infringing on a spouse’s right as the spouse, thereby causing mental pain to the spouse constitutes a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Meu2441, May 29, 2015). The act is an unlawful act committed by the spouse prescribed in Article 840 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.

“Along with a broad concept, including the adultery, it includes any unlawful act that does not reach the adultery, but does not faithful to the marital duty of the husband and wife, and whether it is an unlawful act ought to be evaluated in consideration of the degree and circumstances depending on each specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Meu4095, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant becomes the other party to the instant act, thereby infringing on the common life of the Plaintiff and C, interfering with their maintenance, and infringing on the Plaintiff’s rights as his spouse.